Welcome to EvC CrytoGod.
If you do not realize yet, you will soon find out that the long term members here are well experienced in the use of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times) and quote mining by creationists.
Your sources for this are known by another moniker as "bearing false witness."
For example:
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802
This is covered by Talk Origins under Index to Creationist Claims as
point CC030.
quote:
Claim CC030:
All known fossils of ancient humans would fit on a billiard table (or in a coffin).
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 202.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, 86.
Response:
That may have been true at one time, but there are thousands of hominid fossils now. Lubenow (1992) found that there were fossils from almost 4,000 hominid individuals catalogued as of 1976. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals, 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, 500 Neanderthals, and more (Handprint 1999). Foley (2004) lists some of the more prominent fossils.
It takes only a handful of fossils to show that hominid forms have changed over time.
That lie is going to take an awfully big billiard table under this gravitational field and law of repose.
Additionally quoting Gould as if he was against the concept of evolution is clear out-of-context mining as pretty much everyone here knows he was making the case for punctuated equilibrium, not creationism.
Well, it seems to me you have one of two choices, either stay and learn from this site or other reliable sources or remain forever deceitful about and ignorant of the massive evidence, it's up to you.
In the meantime, you won't be fooling virtually anyone here as to your sources, been there, done that.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
™ Version 4.2
